Energy- and wave-based beam-tracing prediction of room-acoustical parameters using different boundary conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A beam-tracing model was used to study the acoustical responses of three empty, rectangular rooms with different boundary conditions. The model is wave-based (accounting for sound phase) and can be applied to rooms with extended-reaction surfaces that are made of multiple layers of solid, fluid, or poroelastic materials-the acoustical properties of these surfaces are calculated using Biot theory. Three room-acoustical parameters were studied in various room configurations: sound strength, reverberation time, and RApid Speech Transmission Index. The main objective was to investigate the effects of modeling surfaces as either local or extended reaction on predicted values of these three parameters. Moreover, the significance of modeling interference effects was investigated, including the study of sound phase-change on surface reflection. Modeling surfaces as of local or extended reaction was found to be significant for surfaces consisting of multiple layers, specifically when one of the layers is air. For multilayers of solid materials with an air-cavity, this was most significant around their mass-air-mass resonance frequencies. Accounting for interference effects made significant changes in the predicted values of all parameters. Modeling phase change on reflection, on the other hand, was found to be relatively much less significant.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".